Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 24, 1951 " . . -, Counoil Chamber, City Hall, Aroadia, California, July 24, 1951, 8:00 P. M. The City Planning Commission met in regular meeting with Chairman Anderson ~residing. ~S~JT; Mr. knderson, Berky, Kno~~, Smith, Sorenson, Klom~, Lansur, Ross, ~.ic:~lin anc:. Talle~'. iill5:;;';i': u. Robertson and tieiolrert The minutes of tue meeting of July 10, 1951, uere correoted by the ohange of address in the request of Vinita E. Howard from 379 \1. Camino Real to 379 U. Lemon Avenue. They were then ordered a~~roved as uorreoted. Pursuant to notice given, the first publio hearing was held on the a~~l1oation of Carl D. and Ruth B. Thomas and Arcadia-Monrovia Realty for a ohange of zone from Zone R-l to Zone R-3 on a ~ortion of the ~roperty located at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Colorado Blvd. ~~. Marks submitted ~hotographs of the ~roperty and the surroundings. lor. MoFarland, representing the U. S. Forestry Station, stated that they had no objection. lio objections, verbal or written, were registered. The Chairman announced that this first hearing was closed, and that the second hearing would be held on August 14, 1951. " , ~. Berky re~orted that the ap~licaticn of Phyllis Z. Merten, 603 Z. Car.lino ~leal, to divide 1lrOpel'ty more than met the requirements for both front~e and area. Lotiul'l by J..i'. Berky, seconded by lIr. Sorenson and carried that permission be granted to divide, as follows: 1. The East 95 feet of the ITest 322.17 feet of the South 93.69 feet; and 2. The East 95 feet of the llest 227.17 feet of the South 93.69 feet; all in lot 59 , Tract No. 808. '/ A~~licat1on of Vinita E. Howard to divide ~roperty at 379 W. Lemon Avenue was considered. As this property is located in Zone R-O, which allows only one house per lot, motion was made by Mr. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Berky and carried that the request be denied. I Applioation of Alfred Hantsohe, 444 rr. Lemon Avenue, to divide his property was oonsidered. The majority of similar lots in the vioinity have been so divided. l!otion by }.~. Sorenson, seconded by Mr. Anderson and oarried that ~ermission be granted, subjeot to the moving of the existing house to give the required side yards, as follows: (1) The TIest 65 feet; and(2) The East 66.41 feet of lot 64, Traot Eo. 4869. , A~plioation of Calvin 'J. e.ud :tuth R. Blanchard, 1137 Fairview Ave., to divide t;16 W0st 30 feet of lot 47, Tract No. 2731, and add it to the easterly ~ortion of lot 48 was oonsiderea. Kotion by ~. Sorenson, seoonded by ~r. Anderson and earried that the ap~lication be granted. A~plication of ~alter and Elsie Eaton, 1731 S. Sixth Avenue, to divide ~ro~erty at the northwest corner of Sixth Avenue and Lemon Avenue was referred to Mr. Sorenson, l~. Knop~ and l~. Mansur to investigate and report. Ap~licatlon of James B. Herman, 1234 Short Street, to divide ~ro~erty on the City boundary and facing Armijo Street in County territory, was referred to lIr. Smith and 1~. Berky to investigate and report. A~pllcation of G. Stanley \TI1eat, submitted by Robert L. Ualker, agent, requested permission to divide land south of 1009 S. Tenth Avenue into five lots. Motion by J.:r. Knop~, seoonded by La-. Smith and oarried. that the ciecretary notify 1~. ~alker that five lots constitute a subdivision, and that he should submit a tentative subdivision ma~. I lli. Lem ~[ard submitted a sketch showing pro~osed property development eouth of Longden Avenue and west of Sixth Avenue. He was thanked for the 1 " . . map and in:f'ormed that A:r. l.eansur was making a study of thG particular area noVl, anQ that :.i8 su..;::;estion \"lol~lt'i be considered in tl1at study. :rho:..';;) ')oiu:; no :...'t::::,tlliOr business, the meetinG adjour.ucQ. f. ':;>~~ :.;OTi; In a discussion following the foregoing adjournment, I1r. Smith requested a written opinion of the City Attorney on the folloWing matters: 1. Allplication of Vinita E. Howard to divide property at 379 W. Lemon Ave., denied as of this date. Is the present wording of Zoning Ordinance No. 760, as amended by Ordinance No. 786, suffioient to permit only one house on a lot in Zone R-o. If so, is that sufficient reason for denying the above application to divide property. 2. Ollinion as to the advisability of combining the lot split ordinance with the subdivision ordinance.